Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of health care in the Maritimes is something of an orphan.While nationally great strides have been made in the field in recent years, including award-winning work by such scholars as Mary-Ellen Kelm, 1 few historians of the Atlantic region have turned their attention to the history of health despite a flourishing regional scholarship.There are relatively few studies of the hospitals, agencies, individuals, or professions in Atlantic Canada.There are several hospital histories, 2 a number of analyses of nursing education, 3 and other studies that explore aspects of health heritage during the twentieth century.4 Often, health topics are dealt with only in passing in studies of other institutions, such as Peter Waite's history of Dalhousie or James Cameron's of St Francis Xavier.5 We still lack good studies at the provincial level in this region, with the exception of Douglas Baldwin's studies of Prince Edward Island.6 Little has been written about the many workers who comprise the modern health care complex, such as physio-or occupational therapists, x-ray technologists, dietitians, medical records clerks, or pharmacists, to say nothing of the porters, cleaners, and others essential to day-to-day patient care.This book attempts to put health care workers on the agenda through a case study of laboratory workers in the Maritimes.I first became intrigued by the laboratory in Nova Scotia when I encountered a letter written by Dr Andrew Halliday, who was practising in Stewiacke.The young doctor wrote to the provincial medical officer, A.P. Reid, in 1901 to make inquiries about the position of laboratory director.Halliday wrote to Reid that he was interested because he enjoyed the "scientific side" of medicine and noted that he was "not strong enough for country practice."7 I immediately framed several questions.Why was the laboratory established in the mid-1890s?What constituted the "scientific side" of medicine and how was it
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.523 | 0.313 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".